Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 18 To July 24, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX Mamta And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 324 Manish Yadav v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 325 Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And 3 Others v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 326 Oyas @ Avesh v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 327 Farha Faiz v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 328 M/S Ram Krishna Garg Supplier Versus State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 329 State of U.P. v. Narendra Singh 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 330 Om Prakash And Another v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 331 Suresh Babu v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 332 Suraj v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 333 Sunita Devi And Another v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 334 Siddharth Kappor v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 335 Kuldeep Second Bail v. State of U.P 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 336 Sukhbir Singh v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 337 Mukhtar Ansari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 338Srinivas And Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 339 ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK 'Domestic Incident Report' (DIR) Not Mandatory For Adjudicating Matters U/S 12 Of Domestic Violence Act 2005: Allahabad HC Case title - Mamta And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Others Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 324 The Allahabad High Court observed that a Magistrate can take cognizance of the complaint or application filed by the aggrieved person and issue notice to the respondent under Section 12 of the D.V. Act even in the absence of a Domestic Incident Report (DIR). The bench of Justice Rajeev Singh referred to the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474, wherein it was held that Section 12 of the DV Act does not make it mandatory for a Magistrate to consider a Domestic Incident Report filed by a Protection Officer or service provider before passing any order under the D.V. Act. Anticipatory Bail Plea Maintainable If Proclamation U/S 82 & 83 CrPC Is Issued Against Accused After Filing Of Plea: Allahabad HC Case title - Manish Yadav v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 4645 of 2022] Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 325 The Allahabad High Court has observed that the initiation of the process of proclamation or attachment proceedings under sec. 82 or 83 of Cr.PC after the filing of an anticipatory bail plea by an accused does not bar the consideration of such a bail application. With this, the Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan granted anticipatory bail to one Manish Yadav, who is an Army personnel serving in the Indian Army and has been booked in a rape case. Krishna Janmabhumi Dispute | "Expeditiously Decide Plea Seeking Scientific Probe At Shahi Idgah": Allahabad HC To Mathura Court Case title - Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And 3 Others v. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board And 3 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5268 of 2022] Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 326 The Allahabad High Court has directed Mathura Court to expeditiously decide on an application filed before it for conducting a Scientific Investigation of Shahi Eidgah and Jahanara's Masque in connection with a 2021 suit (Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman and others vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board and others). The bench of Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit ordered thus while hearing an Article 227 plea moved by Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman And 3 Others seeking a direction to the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Mathura to decide the application filed before the Mathura Court. Accused Can Be Booked U/S 326A IPC Even If No 'Grievous Hurt' Is Caused To Acid Attack Survivor: Allahabad High Court Case title - Oyas @ Avesh v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2407 of 2022] Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 327 The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the charge under Section 326A IPC can be framed against the accused even if no grievous hurt has been caused to the acid attack survivor and that grievous hurt to an acid attack survivor is not mandatory in each case. It may be noted that this provision deals with the offence and punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc. It says that whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to life imprisonment. Only Investigating Agency Can Move Application For Further Investigation U/S 173(8) CrPC: Allahabad High Court Case title - Farha Faiz v. ...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 18 To July 24, 2022

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags